continuum-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Venisse <emman...@venisse.net>
Subject Re: build failures, warnings and continuum
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:52:35 GMT
In 1.1, you can force a build without changes (and re-do a complete checkout)
And if you have 2 build definitions, the second build definition won't look if you have changes
since the latest update of the working copy but since the latest execution of the current
build 
definition to prevent to skip a build because an other build definition has already updated
the working copy.

Emmanuel

David Roussel a écrit :
> It's a bit of a hack, but you can see earlier posts in this list for how
> to force a build with no changes, but it won't honour your dependency. 
> BTW it just uses curl and cron.
> 
> As for the bug in 1.0.3, I think only bugs in 1.1-alpha are being fixed
> by the commiters, so your best bet is to test on 1.1.  Not great.
> 
> BTW, you can do all this stuff in luntbuild.
> 
> David
> 
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:29:21 +0200, "Erik Ruisma"
> <feniksenator@gmail.com> said:
>> Indeed we use continuum 1.0.3.
>>
>> Ok we now got them running seperately, BUT only the first build is
>> actually
>> executed, the second build does not start as there are no changes in CVS.
>> Is there any way to force a build even if there are no changes? In fact
>> what
>> I really want is that the second build is only executed if the first
>> build
>> has been launched.
>>
>> So scheduling two builds for the same project at the same time does not
>> work, I believe that's a bug.
>>
>> On 4/3/07, David Roussel <dave@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
>>> I take it you've got them to run ok separately?   Do then run ok when
>>> not scheduled together?
>>>
>>> Is this in continuum 1.0.3?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 Apr 2007, at 16:28, Erik Ruisma wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for your proposal. That's what we did.
>>>> However this seems to create some new problems.
>>>> So what we have are two build definitions for one project: one
>>>> launching the
>>>> tests, one creating and deploying the site.
>>>>
>>>> We have scheduled both builds to run at the same moment. BUT only one
>>>> actually runs.
>>>> Why ?
>>>> I can find the following in our logs:
>>>> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
>>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO  Continuum                      -
>>>> Enqueuing
>>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=116).
>>>> INFO   | jvm 1    | 2007/04/02 20:00:00 | 2007-04-02 20:00:00,156
>>>> [defaultScheduler_Worker-2] INFO  Continuum                      -
>>>> Enqueuing
>>>> 'MyProject' (Build definition id=118).
>>>>
>>>> Only the last one is executed. Is it possible that this is a bug in
>>>> continuum ? ie that MyProject is somehow used as the key and only
>>>> the last
>>>> element from the queue remains?
>>>>
>>>> What if we would use 2 different build times (to make things more
>>>> complex, I
>>>> don't prefer it): is it possible to force the last scheduled build
>>>> definition to run even if their are no modifications?? This seems
>>>> to be also
>>>> an issue...?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any feedback welcome.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/15/07, David Roussel <continuum@diroussel.xsmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Define two builds, one just to run the tests and report them.  The
>>>>> second build to just do the site.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:07 +0100, "Erik Ruisma"
>>>>> <feniksenator@gmail.com> said:
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not quite sure if this is a continuum or a Maven question,
>>>>> but I
>>>>>> thought
>>>>>> to post first on the Continuum mailing list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In our company-wide settings I want that project sites are
>>>>> generated,
>>>>> and
>>>>>> artifacts get deployed to our internal repository even when
>>>>> there are
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> unit tests that fail. We also want that a mail is send when
>>>>> there are
>>>>>> test
>>>>>> failures, with some kind of indication that their was a problem
>>>>> during
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you set this up ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message